RiskBlend: A Multi-Signal Framework for Test Input Prioritization in Machine Learning Regression Testing

When machine learning classifiers are retrained, inputs correctly classified by the previous model version may be misclassified by the updated version, creating regression faults that are costly to detect because verifying predictions against ground truth may require human annotation, expert review, or expensive simulation rather than inexpensive model inference. Test input prioritization addresses this problem by ranking inputs so that a limited verification budget reveals as many regression faults as possible. Existing approaches rely predominantly on single-model confidence scores and do not exploit how predictions, decision boundaries, and local neighborhoods change between model versions. We propose RiskBlend, a classifier-agnostic prioritization framework that combines four complementary risk signals: historical failure patterns, prediction shift, decision-boundary shift, and neighborhood change. These signals are combined using validation-learned APFD-squared weighting. Across four datasets, five classifiers, four regression-update scenarios, and 15 random seeds, totaling 1,200 experimental configurations, RiskBlend achieves the highest average APFD in all 80 dataset-classifier-scenario combinations, with improvements of up to 0.32 APFD over the strongest baseline. Confidence-based methods remain competitive primarily for linear classifiers on sparse categorical features, which we attribute to feature-space geometry. The results show that cross-version behavioral signals provide important complementary information for prioritizing regression faults in machine learning systems.

What Aggregate Scores Miss: Measuring Item-Level Regressions in Commercial LLM API Migrations

Context: Software systems that depend on commercial large language model APIs must migrate to successor versions when vendors deprecate older models. Migration decisions typically rely on aggregate benchmark scores, which compress heterogeneous item-level behaviour into a single net figure. Objective: We measure what that compression conceals. Method: On three pairwise upgrades in the GPT-5.4 to GPT-5.6 Sol product sequence, we query 900 public benchmark items (graduate-level knowledge, olympiad mathematics, instruction following) 50 times per item per model, classify each item as reliably improved, reliably regressed, practically equivalent, or inconclusive under false-discovery-rate control and a practical-significance threshold, and calibrate the results against a label-permutation null. Results: Across all nine migration-benchmark cells, reliable improvements and reliable regressions coexist. Edges with aggregate gains of up to 7.3 percentage points contain up to 8.3% reliably regressed items; edges with aggregate losses contain up to 10.7% reliably improved items. On the instruction-following benchmark, the gap between strict and loose scoring widens by 3.9 percentage points on the latest migration: a 3.9-point regression under strict scoring shrinks to 0.04 points under loose scoring. Conclusion: Migration decisions based on aggregate scores alone miss substantial bidirectional item-level change. The complete response-level archive and per-item scoring outputs are released.

Who Belongs in the Eval Set? A Capability-Taxonomy-Driven Pipeline for Curating Regression Eval Sets in Agent-Extensibility Platforms

Platform teams hosting agent-extensibility surfaces face a regression-economics paradox: every onboarding customer ships an evaluation set tuned to their domain, but the platform's regression set must live under a hard query-count ceiling bounded by release cadence. To our knowledge, no published industrial pipeline addresses this platform-side curation problem: existing evaluation frameworks are customer-side, and benchmark-compression work treats benchmarks as fixed pools rather than streams of incoming sets. We describe a capability-taxonomy-driven curation pipeline applied to declarative agents with custom actions in Microsoft 365 Copilot. It takes an agent specification and a customer's eval set as input, projects each query into a platform-owned capability taxonomy, and outputs per-query decisions (admit, drop, swap, or human review), under the philosophy that a healthy regression set is the minimal set of queries capturing the maximal spread of capability signatures -- distinct combinations of capabilities a query exercises together. Three components instantiate this: a classifier producing per-(query, capability) verdicts via a hybrid of deterministic specification-based extraction and large-language-model (LLM) semantic inference; an Invocation Quality (IQ) rater scoring how thoroughly a query exercises each capability, so a new query sharing a signature with an existing entry can still be recognized as a better test and displace it; and a consolidator comparing incoming queries against the regression set on coverage and quality through a rule-based decision cascade, backed by a conservative curator that only suggests evictions. The mechanism is taxonomy-agnostic and applies to any regression eval-set curation problem with a typed capability taxonomy, including taxonomies that evolve in response to the very evidence the pipeline surfaces.

DragonCrawl: A Generative, Intent-Based Framework for Scalable Mobile End-to-End Testing

As mobile applications grow in complexity, traditional End-to-End (E2E) testing frameworks struggle with UI volatility, maintenance overhead, and cross-platform scalability. This paper presents DragonCrawl, an AI-driven mobile testing system for continuous regression testing that has evolved from embedding-based similarity matching to generative intent-based reasoning using large language models. Unlike prior LLM-based testing research focused on exploratory testing and crash detection, DragonCrawl validates specific user flows on every code change, blocking commits that break critical functionality. By leveraging GPT-4o's multimodal capabilities, DragonCrawl achieves 91.6% pass rate on iOS and 92.2% on Android across 1,013 automated tests running continuously in CI/CD pipelines. The system reduces test onboarding time from 96-120 hours to under 4 hours and has saved an estimated 27 developer years in test maintenance effort. We present the architectural evolution from V1 (semantic embedding matching) to V2 (generative intent-based reasoning), discuss implementation challenges including token explosion and memory constraints, and report operational experience from production deployment. The integration of multimodal vision for end-state detection and tool calling for backend state transitions enables comprehensive regression testing that bridges UI interactions with system state. Our results demonstrate that AI-driven testing can maintain stability while eliminating the brittleness of traditional automated tests, enabling continuous quality assurance at scale.

Agentic Synthesis against Counterexample-Supplemented Sketches

Coding agents can fix a failing example without preserving the domain rule that made it fail. We present agentic synthesis against counterexample-supplemented sketches, a repository-native method for systems whose policy is discovered during implementation. A human starts with a partial sketch, and a coding agent compiles a replaceable projection. When simulation exposes missing or mistaken policy, an operator approves the corrected behavior and the minimum general rule the case authorizes. Every Developer call names its change authority and the rules, holes, anchors, and approved behavior that must survive. Conflict or ambiguous permission leaves the files unchanged and produces a clarification question. A complete archive preserves provenance; a curated regression set gates distinct boundaries. Before another candidate is revealed, the active case and curated regressions must pass both deterministic approved-output comparison and a separate review against the current sketch. Periodic clean regeneration tests whether the sketch carries the learned policy. We demonstrate the method with CatSynth, a captured synthetic application. In one open-world run with GPT-5.4-mini, 8 of 14 frozen candidates became counterexamples. Under the corrected protocol, replay-all, evolved-sketch rebuild, and retained Sketch-CE each passed all 8 accepted cases. They passed 14, 17, and 16 of 21 withheld cases, respectively. Sketch review rejected premature empty-input and tag policies and restored dropped anchors; adjudicated reviewer errors did not become policy. One model and one reveal order cannot establish general correctness or superiority. On this suite, the second check exposed drift hidden by deterministic replay, and the reviewed sketch passed three more withheld cases than raw example replay.

AIChilles: Automatically Uncovering Hidden Weaknesses in AI-Evolved Systems

The computer systems community has recently seen growing interest in AI-driven system evolution, where AI agents iteratively rewrite systems. Frameworks such as AdaEvolve and Engram report 12-60% score improvements over human-designed algorithms. While these results are promising, there are practical concerns if these AI-evolved programs can perform worse on unseen workloads and exhibit scalability regressions. Given the speed and scale of AI-generated code, we need automated mechanisms to uncover such identify hidden weaknesses in AI-evolved systems programs. To this end, we develop AIChilles that takes as input a baseline program $P$ and an AI-evolved program $P'$, AIChilles searches for valid workloads where $P'$ regresses relative to $P$ in correctness, runtime, memory usage, or output quality. To tackle the diversity in system applications, weakness types and potential bugs, AIChilles combines deterministic workload-parameter extraction, agent-based constraint inference, differential oracles, and code-frequency coverage to discover diverse failures. Across five system applications and 30 AI-evolved programs, AIChilles finds 49 distinct hidden weaknesses. We also show that explicitly including AIChilles in the AI-driven development lifecycle can mitigate several of these weaknesses.

Layer-Isolated Evaluation: Gating the Deterministic Scaffold of a Production LLM Agent with a No-LLM, Regression-Locked Test Harness

End-to-end task-success is the dominant way to evaluate LLM agents, but one aggregate number tells you that an agent regressed, not where. We present layer-isolated evaluation: a deployed ordering agent is decomposed into a fixed taxonomy of layers (ontology, intent, routing, decomposition, escalation, safety, memory, and cross-cutting envelope/defense), each exercised by its own assertion slice in a deterministic, no-LLM "pure" mode. The pure suite (238 cases across 23 slices; 225 run in 2.39 s, ~10 ms/case) runs in CI on every change against a locked per-slice baseline. We validate by controlled regression injection, degrading one layer at a time across seven non-safety layers. The effect we did not design in is masking: the aggregate pass-rate barely moves (-1.7 to -5.9 pp for six local regressions), while the matching slice craters (-25 to -91 pp). A layer's slice reacting to its own fault is partly by construction; the measured results are (i) the aggregate masking and (ii) that damage stays off the other slices: the injected layer's slice is the single worst-hit in 5 of 7 cases and top-3 in 7 of 7 (mean rank 1.29 of 19). Localization replicates on a second, structurally different tenant (Starbucks SG): all seven matching slices crater, so it is not a single-catalog artifact. We position it as a concrete, deterministic instantiation of the component-level evaluation EDDOps prescribes but leaves unimplemented, with CheckList as ancestor and as the deterministic mirror image of whole-workflow stochastic mutation testing. Our contributions: (a) a fully decomposed, sub-second, no-LLM per-layer harness for a production agent, (b) a coverage-honesty test-adequacy criterion that refuses to score an unexercised layer, and (c) the regression-injection demonstration that per-slice baseline-locked gates localize regressions an aggregate metric masks.

Test Before You Deploy: Governing Updates in the LLM Supply Chain

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as core dependencies in software systems. However, the hosted LLM services evolve continuously through provider-side updates without explicit version changes. These silent updates can introduce behavioral drift, causing regressions in functionality, formatting, safety constraints, or other application-specific requirements. Existing approaches focus primarily on regression testing or versioning but do not provide deployer-side mechanisms for governing compatibility during opaque model evolution. This paper proposes a deployment-side governance framework based on three components: clearly defined rules for how the model is allowed to behave (production contracts), focused testing organized by deployment risk categories (risk-category-based testing suite), and release checkpoints that block updates unless they meet defined safety and performance standards (compatibility gates). Through exploratory validation across multiple LLM versions, we provide evidence that targeted testing in specific risk areas can uncover performance regressions that overall metrics miss. We also identify several open research challenges, including how to systematically build effective test suites, how to set reliable performance thresholds in non-deterministic systems, and how to detect and explain model drift when providers offer limited transparency. Overall, we frame LLM update management as a software supply chain governance problem and outline a research agenda for putting deployer-side compatibility controls into practice.